Re: [PATCH] rust: dma: return zero for Coherent reads past EOF
"Gary Guo" <[email protected]> Fri, 24 Jul 2026 03:12:16 +0100
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.driver-core,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.rust-for-linux |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri Jul 24, 2026 at 2:19 AM BST, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Fri Jul 24, 2026 at 9:46 AM JST, Gary Guo wrote: >> On Fri Jul 24, 2026 at 1:18 AM BST, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >>> On Fri Jul 24, 2026 at 8:32 AM JST, Gary Guo wrote: >>>> On Mon Jul 20, 2026 at 8:21 PM BST, Younes Akhouayri via B4 Relay wrote: >>>>> From: Younes Akhouayri <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> Coherent<T>::write_to_slice() calculates a zero-byte copy when the file >>>>> offset is beyond the allocation, but still calls >>>>> UserSliceWriter::write_dma(). The latter rejects offsets beyond the >>>>> allocation even when the copy length is zero, so a debugfs read past EOF >>>>> returns -ERANGE. >>>>> >>>>> Return before calling write_dma() when the offset is at or beyond the >>>>> allocation, matching simple_read_from_buffer() EOF semantics. >>>>> >>>>> Fixes: 016818513936 ("rust: dma: implement BinaryWriter for Coherent<[u8]>") >>>>> Signed-off-by: Younes Akhouayri <[email protected]> >>>>> --- >>>>> rust/kernel/dma.rs | 4 ++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/dma.rs b/rust/kernel/dma.rs >>>>> index 200def84fb69..36b72fb9ab46 100644 >>>>> --- a/rust/kernel/dma.rs >>>>> +++ b/rust/kernel/dma.rs >>>>> @@ -1005,6 +1005,10 @@ fn write_to_slice( >>>>> return Ok(0); >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> + if offset_val >= self.size() { >>>>> + return Ok(0); >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> let count = self.size().saturating_sub(offset_val).min(writer.len()); >>>> >>>> This saturating_sub is redundant now and should just use -. >>> >>> Or even better, you could use `checked_sub` to perform the test and the >>> subtraction in one go, while avoiding potentially panicking operands. >> >> I think the code is clearer with separate EOF check length calc. This also needs >> to return `Ok` so it's not like that you can use `?`. > > Is it clearer? The `checked_sub` is efficient and makes it clear the > code won't panic. And `ok_or` takes care of converting to the right > error nicely. There's no error here. Best, Gary